Color-Space and Profiles

I recently received an email asking what color-space/profile I use in post-processing. First, I'd like to preface that I am by no means a master colorist or printer. It's best you stop reading this right now and Google "understanding color-space" and forget this entry ever existed. If you want a wet&dirty laymen's take, I give you this grain of salt-- take it as such. What I'm about to say stems from my own personal education on the subject-- which is very basic...but what I use suits my needs.

First off, a color-space is a gamut of colors...aka... a color range. How big this gamut is (read: space) directly correlates to how much color depth and brightness you are offered to work with when adjusting color in your image in programs such as Photoshop. So, the bigger the space, the more color range you have-- but don't confuse "more color-range" with "more colors"; you're getting the same number of colors, but a wider saturation range.

From smallest to largest, these three are the most common color-space profiles:

- sRGB

- Adobe RGB (sometimes Adobe RGB 1998)

- ProPhoto RGB

Please refer to the graphic below. The center point is the most desaturated the colors will be... the farther out you move from the center, the more saturated the colors become. You can see where sRGB range stops... and then the color saturation continues outward. See how much more color range/saturation is available to you between sRGB and Adobe RGB.

In my opinion, the age of the professional print is waning fast. Sure, a lot of photographers still carry around and present a psychical portfolio book to show prospective clients... but where your work is seen most often, and by the most people, is your website. On top of that, the iPad is dead-set on supplanting the portfolio book as well. Love it or hate it, that's just the way it's going; it happened to film cameras, now it's happening to prints.

So... since my work is mostly seen on the internet, I choose to work in the smallest, most limited profile, sRGB, the majority of the time. This is because sRGB's limited color-range matches that of the average computer monitor, world-wide. Now, many photographers would lambast me for electing to limit my color options to such a small gamut, and I mostly agree with them. However, the most important reason I elect to work in sRGB is also the most critical: I want to be assured that the colors in my final image will be seen exactly how I see them, by any person, anywhere in the world, on any computer.

Since (for now), the internet is my primary, widest reaching showcase venue, it makes better sense for me to use the universal color space (for average monitors) and know that the degree of blue I made the sky in a photo, is the same blue some Japanese kid is going to see on his screen when he checks out my site. Using a wider gamut would be nice in the short-run... I'd have a lot more range of saturation and can possible make my photos even more vibrate/colorful... but throw that up on my site, then go to a friend's computer... the image will more than likely look duller and more desaturated because that monitor is set for an sRBG color profile, thus not displaying any color-range outside of its profile (that was visible to me on Adobe RGB). So now, I've got something up on my site that isn't a reflective representation of how I adjusted it; the average person viewing my work on their computer will not see the colors how I intended. Solution is to edit in what their range will be (sRGB) and what you see will be what they see (more or less).

So yes... sRGB is the least attractive and most limited profile, but in this digital age, it's going to be the one that's most honest on any given computer.

Now, if you're hot on making prints and/or you just want a much better range of colors... no doubt you need to be in Adobe RGB. It's a medium-gamut and more importantly, the printer's industry standard. However, you also need to get on the phone with your printer ahead of time and ask what specific brand/model of printer they are using, as it makes a small difference. I'm not too keen on what exact micro adjustments you make in PS after, but they can probably walk you through it. Point is: always ask.

If you're a fancy-pants fine-art photographer or a God-complex color-perfectionist, you're probably not even reading this blog, but more than likely working in ProPhoto RGB. Good for you. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm pretty envious, as it's a specialized skill to understand how to wield that mighty sword without hurting yourself. This is a giant profile, but don't think that because it offers the most color-range, you just NEED to be working in it. In this case, bigger doesn't mean better if your camera-captured color range falls within a smaller gamut....

... Think of it this way: you have a 20oz pitcher and a 12oz can of beer. You open the can of beer and pour it into the pitcher. The beer only fills a small portion of the pitcher and that's ALL the beer you have. Then you drink from the pitcher. Kinda pointless isn't it, if all you needed, moreso all you HAD, was 12oz's of beer... just drink it from the can.

....Mmmmmmm...beeeeer.

Depending on what you are shooting and what you are shooting with, you may only need a certain size color-range; so don't think if you're always working within bigger color-space/profile means you're maximizing your options-- -it may just be pointless. So, how can you tell how much color you have and how much you're losing by being within a certain size color-space? Check your histogram in RAW and look at your color channel clippings (colors outside the range you've selected). If you have none, you're fine in your existing color space; if you've got a lot, consider a larger space... but always bear in mind your final output: web, standard print, or fancy-pants print.

Lastly, it's very important to sync the color profile of your DSLR to the color profile of your work-space. In other words, if your camera is set to Adobe RGB, then your work-space should be set to Adobe RGB. If you shoot on Adobe RGB, but your work-space is set to sRGB, then your going to lose a lot of the color captured initially in your image; your untouched photos are going to look more vibrant/etc than when you view them within Photoshop, if set on conflicting color-space. Your camera's manual will tell you how to change it.

Again, there are far better and more extensive articles on this subject; mine is a rudimentary grasp, so rank this entry pretty low on your "take-it-to-heart" list and delve into Google to read expertise takes. However, if anything, hopefully this entry has simply made you AWARE why you may not be getting the most out of your photo prints and/or why what you see on your monitor doesn't match what it looks like on your friend's laptop.

Shoots: Tatiana, Michelle, Chelsea,& Brett

Zuri Model and Talent contacted me recently about their intentions to expand from primarily repping children, to now include juniors/teens... and wanted to know if I was interested in testing some of their newest signs. The look would be more commercial-youth oriented, something that I had never really chased before... so I was happy to oblige, if anything to challenge/test myself with themes I've yet to explore much.

The agency secured a 5-acre estate in Malibu, as well as a full professional team of stylists and make-up & hair artists... which makes it incredibly easy on set, when I can just leave it to pros and not have to micro-manage. I could get used to this.

However, shooting four models individually and in various combinations, each with multiple looks, is a pretty tall order... so I brought on a good friend and fellow photographer, Sterling Davis, as a second-shooter. Sterling is not only naturally gifted, but is a technical encyclopedia when it comes to lighting-- both ambient and artificial/studio-- so, it was very comforting to be able to turn to him, if only to discuss every possibility when it came to assessing/composing any given setting. He was a huge help and I could never have covered everything that needed to be accomplished without him. A solid dude.

Once again, hit gold with the models-- they were all rather lovely young women who came on set to work and nary a complaint amongst them. I know I've been spoiled lately-- I'm just dreading the future shoot where the other shoe finally drops and I get some screaming diva... but that wasn't this day.

Call time was noon, which gave Sterling and I about an hour to prep our equipment and tour the estate to carve out which settings we were going to use. The girls came down in staggered rotations, which was efficient, but soon realized that we couldn't really break much in order to get through the day before we lost light. So, when the sun finally set and the last picture was snapped, we were totally exhausted... to only then face the 45 minute drive back to Los Angeles; I know 45 mins doesn't sound like long, but it is when you've been looking through a viewfinder with one eye for eight hours.

So, what did I learn? That early afternoon sun in the summer is a bitch to get a nice exposure with little to no diffusion. That with extended shoots you must force yourself to set the camera down for at least 30mins, lest you nearly careen off the PCH into the Pacific, due to fatigue. And that you should not schedule a shoot on the same day as the World Cup final game, as you'll find your concentration drifting quite often ;-)

Special thanks to Nikki Olson of Zuri for arranging everything and making it run smoothly, and to Sterling for all his help, guidance, and extended coverage. I'm not sure when/if he'll have his images from the shoot up on his site, but be sure to check him out.

PS: the compression on Blogger really, really, really sucks. Please know the colors in these pictures is much more clear/vibrant/awesome. I'll have them up on my website, whenever that long-awaited (by me) day it finally goes up.

Live Portrait: Kristina

Live Portrait: Kristina from Shoot Luke on Vimeo.

Kristina had seen my prior two live portraits and said if I was interested, she'd be interested in doing one as well. For this one, I wanted to do something different; changing up the scenery from my usual magic-hour golden field was one thing, but I moreso wanted to experiment with pacing.

One could argue this latest video departs from the idea/definition of a "portrait" and transcends into just a montage/sizzle reel, maybe even a music video... but I will lobby that it is still a visual likeness study of a person. I don't want to get into semantics, nor really do I care, so in the end, call it what you will, but I'm sure you can't contest the spirit of my intention.

Anyway, in film school I was an editing "major", as did I work as an assistant editor directly out of college, so it was fun getting back to my cutting roots, as this obviously has a tone and pace to it different from my slower, more lingering videos of prior. I had about 25 minutes of raw footage; using Final Cut Pro HD Express, it took me about 2 days to form a rough cut, then another day to really tighten it up. I could've spent another whole week on this and made it uber-tight, maybe even tried some funky match-cutting to different motions, cut against certain beats of the song... but I've been stretched so thin with shooting and post-processing in normal photography.... and am also fastly developing a form of insomnia, to where I'm all but a zombie. Coffee helps.

I shot this entire video using only my Canon 24-70mm; when shooting 30fps, you should only ever be on 1/60 for your shutter-speed, but my DOF ranged between 5.6-8.0. I elected to use manual focus, so I could get a cool rack-focusing effect at certain points, and also purposely being out of focus for others-- an aesthetic choice.

On to Kristina... what a trooper. It was gloomy and overcast that day, which makes the beach a very cold place, despite it being summer, not to mention the Pacific is absolutely frigid, no matter what time of year it is. In other words: she was freezing her ass off.

...yet, she managed to look amazing and smiled all the way through it. Actually, that's a lie-- I have lots of B-roll footage of her writhing around, frantically screaming into the waves, "IT'S SO G-D COLD!!!". I actually put a quick shot of it within the video-- see if you can spot it!

I gotta say, I'm really liking doing these little experimental portrait-videos; having great lenses allows you make some very cinematic, professional looking shots, that not so long ago was really only an option for professional film shoots and/or would cost you $1000's to rent.

A DSLR body with video and a good piece of glass ain't no cheap buy, neither... but definitely more in the realm of affordability than a RED camera or likened.

Anyway, I had a blast shooting this and putting it together; you can expect more live portraits in the future... or whatever you wanna call them ;-)

And if you want to view in larger, prettier HD, click here!

Shoots: Kristina 2

Over the 4th of July weekend, I hooked up with Kristina once again and headed down to El Matador Beach in Malibu for some sand and shooting. The intention was more to experiment with shooting video on the 5dmkII; I'm really getting into the live portraits I've been messing around with and am thinking about expanding the scope of future ones, hence the yet-to-be-posted video I shot of Kristina.

More on that later, but I also snapped off a couple dozen shots of her, because-- hey, why not? It was completely overcast that day, so I didn't have the option of my go-to-crutch of sun-flares and hazy backlighting... which I actually liked not having.

Anyway, it's a short post today, because it was a short (still) shoot. The live-portrait of Kristina with much more detail about the shoot is forthcoming, so stay tuned!